if this thread must die then so be it
Losing faith ?
LOL, I think we should kill it. It is impossible to keep up with the conversation. Perhaps moderater can save us by locking it.
Topic: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion - page 19187. (Read 26608460 times)
February 25, 2016, 07:52:14 PM
Losing faith ?
LOL, I think we should kill it. It is impossible to keep up with the conversation. Perhaps moderater can save us by locking it.
February 25, 2016, 07:50:13 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_m7_xZN8D7M
ok guys, it's been fun, sometimes ... see you on the Otherside.
ok guys, it's been fun, sometimes ... see you on the Otherside.
February 25, 2016, 07:48:56 PM
February 25, 2016, 07:48:36 PM
if this thread must die then so be it
Losing faith ?
February 25, 2016, 07:48:02 PM
i'm fighting fire with fire now.
Yeah, you know we firefighters don't really do that, right? I mean sometimes with brushfires the wildland guys will start a backburn to create a firebreak, but often that just makes the problem worse. It's one reason why the Ammonds in Oregon are serving a five year prison sentence.
Just so you know.
February 25, 2016, 07:48:02 PM
if this thread must die then so be it
Losing faith ?
February 25, 2016, 07:46:43 PM
if this thread must die then so be it
February 25, 2016, 07:32:13 PM
Why would a governance change be appropriate?
Loss of market share? check.
Loss of six year logarithmic uptrend in price? Check
Gridlock in decision-making? check.
Loss of essential properties such as decentralization, anonymity, sufficient capacity and censorship resistance? check
What more do we fucking need? How is it not obvious that this is a full-on, five alarm clusterfuck?
Loss of market share? check.
Loss of six year logarithmic uptrend in price? Check
Gridlock in decision-making? check.
Loss of essential properties such as decentralization, anonymity, sufficient capacity and censorship resistance? check
What more do we fucking need? How is it not obvious that this is a full-on, five alarm clusterfuck?
so it was always about governance? you big blocker shills have been led on a merry dance of lies, useful idiots in a coup attempt, just admit it.
Does that mean you don't think it's a clusterfuck or that you do but don't care?
February 25, 2016, 07:22:25 PM
if you small blocker truly believe the shit you say you should from a group that wishes to lower block limit to 0.5MB.
you'll get more decentralization and security, for everything else there's the Lighting Network promiseland.
you'll get more decentralization and security, for everything else there's the Lighting Network promiseland.
I know that you know that most people want bigger blocks - sooner or later.
Why keep saying stuff like this?
I blurt shit out when i'm stressed and angry.
people are angry because they are coming to the realisation that we are all small blockers now
first it was wtf 20MB is fine!, then ok mebbe 8MB is coolest ... now it is pretty please can we have 2MB ... the big blockers stuffed up when they didn't support with BIP 103 (20% increase per annum starting in Jan 16), now they have created enough noise and contention that 2MB is a 'big deal'.
all this shows is that gavin was listening to all and trying to form a consensus.
while blockstream was FUDing like mad fools, with Mr peter todd leading the charge.
February 25, 2016, 07:20:18 PM
Why would a governance change be appropriate?
Loss of market share? check.
Loss of six year logarithmic uptrend in price? Check
Gridlock in decision-making? check.
Loss of essential properties such as decentralization, anonymity, sufficient capacity and censorship resistance? check
What more do we fucking need? How is it not obvious that this is a full-on, five alarm clusterfuck?
Loss of market share? check.
Loss of six year logarithmic uptrend in price? Check
Gridlock in decision-making? check.
Loss of essential properties such as decentralization, anonymity, sufficient capacity and censorship resistance? check
What more do we fucking need? How is it not obvious that this is a full-on, five alarm clusterfuck?
February 25, 2016, 07:19:55 PM
Long and strong.
February 25, 2016, 07:14:58 PM
anyone that say adam back was right not representing blockstreams interest at the meeting in HK is a fucking retard!
the point of the damn meeting was to get some agreement between blockstream and chinese miner....
they wasted and continue to wast EVERYONE'S time, thats the bottom line.
the point of the damn meeting was to get some agreement between blockstream and chinese miner....
they wasted and continue to wast EVERYONE'S time, thats the bottom line.
Hear, hear
February 25, 2016, 07:08:28 PM
anyone that say adam back was right not representing blockstreams interest at the meeting in HK is a fucking retard!
the point of the damn meeting was to get some agreement between blockstream and chinese miner....
they wasted and continue to wast EVERYONE'S time, thats the bottom line.
the point of the damn meeting was to get some agreement between blockstream and chinese miner....
they wasted and continue to wast EVERYONE'S time, thats the bottom line.
Hear, hear
February 25, 2016, 07:07:32 PM
anyone that say adam back was right in not representing blockstreams interest at the meeting in HK is a fucking retard!
the point of the damn meeting was to get some agreement between blockstream and chinese miners....
they wasted and continue to wast EVERYONE'S time, thats the bottom line.
the point of the damn meeting was to get some agreement between blockstream and chinese miners....
they wasted and continue to wast EVERYONE'S time, thats the bottom line.
February 25, 2016, 07:04:57 PM
if you small blocker truly believe the shit you say you should from a group that wishes to lower block limit to 0.5MB.
you'll get more decentralization and security, for everything else there's the Lighting Network promiseland.
you'll get more decentralization and security, for everything else there's the Lighting Network promiseland.
That's not really a sound logical extension, Adam.
I wouldn't characterize myself as a "small blocker," but it does seem that the large majority of the core view seems to be a fairly decent and reasonable road forward...
I am very sympathetic with Core in a lot of ways... especially in regards to questioning the need and/or the emergency that is put in front of us by the proposals involving XT and Classic and some of the seeming purposeful contention contained in those roadmaps to suggest that a hardfork is the only way to go and to call into question bitcoin's status quo governance in a kind of coo approach.
Anyhow, beginning with Seg wit and then reconsidering to take one step at a time, seg wit is deployed along the way... as what the next step should be.
It's uncanny. No matter how I shuffle the words around, your post reads exactly the same.
That's called a reading comprehension deficit.
I believe I had that when I was a kid, and when I used to read, but did not really understand the points that were being made.
A potential bright side is that if you work at it, there is a decent possibility that you will be able to improve, so long as you put some effort into it, and attempt to recognize some of your challenged areas.
February 25, 2016, 07:00:47 PM
February 25, 2016, 07:00:46 PM
https://twitter.com/onemorepeter/status/702807258003017728 <- alot of smart poeple think BS is doing it worng. but forget that....
its no longer a matter of small block big blocks, blockstream has REPEATEDLY acted like fools and so i no longer trust a word they say.
here the latest blockstream BS i had to watch unfold : Did Blockstream veto the roundtable consensus?
these guys are fools!
i want gavin back.
it's not about big Vs small blocks.... not really.
its no longer a matter of small block big blocks, blockstream has REPEATEDLY acted like fools and so i no longer trust a word they say.
here the latest blockstream BS i had to watch unfold : Did Blockstream veto the roundtable consensus?
these guys are fools!
i want gavin back.
it's not about big Vs small blocks.... not really.
February 25, 2016, 07:00:33 PM
It seems to be much better for bitcoin to grow slowly and also much better not to be too rash in attempts to change governance...
I'm curious how bad/urgent a problem would have to be before you thought a change in governance was appropriate.
February 25, 2016, 06:57:35 PM
i'm tried of getting FUCKED by blockstream.
Is it really Blockstream, or are you just reading too much into it.. and maybe even getting a little irritated by some of the personalities?
I don't really know what to say, because the level of your exasperation seems to be somewhat blown out of proportion.
In the end, we are going to have various individuals who maybe have too much influence, but that really doesn't mean that they are fully in charge or that they have veto power or anything like that.
Yes, a lot of people are suggesting that the size increase should come first... but really is a size increase necessary or an emergency (even though down the road it is pretty likely to take place in various degrees)?
Also, I don't really buy the propaganda that there is some kind of commercial interest biasing the more conservative and step by step approach...
It seems to be much better for bitcoin to grow slowly and also much better not to be too rash in attempts to change governance...
By the way, Adam, I will take you at your word that you are attempting to be genuine, and that you are not talking your book... I mean overall, there can be differences of opinion and still many of us with different opinions still are aiming for the success of bitcoin and price rises in the near future.
February 25, 2016, 06:53:54 PM
if you small blocker truly believe the shit you say you should from a group that wishes to lower block limit to 0.5MB.
you'll get more decentralization and security, for everything else there's the Lighting Network promiseland.
you'll get more decentralization and security, for everything else there's the Lighting Network promiseland.
That's not really a sound logical extension, Adam.
I wouldn't characterize myself as a "small blocker," but it does seem that the large majority of the core view seems to be a fairly decent and reasonable road forward...
I am very sympathetic with Core in a lot of ways... especially in regards to questioning the need and/or the emergency that is put in front of us by the proposals involving XT and Classic and some of the seeming purposeful contention contained in those roadmaps to suggest that a hardfork is the only way to go and to call into question bitcoin's status quo governance in a kind of coo approach.
Anyhow, beginning with Seg wit and then reconsidering to take one step at a time, seg wit is deployed along the way... as what the next step should be.
It's uncanny. No matter how I shuffle the words around, your post reads exactly the same.
Jump to: